LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The National League of Cities, an organization of local leaders dedicated to advancing and improving local governments, released a report finding that, while economic growth remains a top priority for local leaders, cities continue to face overlapping, long-term challenges related to housing affordability, infrastructure investment, workforce development and community well-being, according to a recent press release.
The 2026 State of the Cities report, released during the NLC Summer Board & Leadership Meeting in Louisville, identifies critical long-term challenges local leaders face regarding housing affordability, infrastructure investment, workforce development and community well-being.
In addition, the report finds that budget and management, as well as public health and safety, are among the key issues in 2026.
“They are addressing these challenges with strategies focused primarily on downtown revitalization and prioritizing workforce development,” the report states.
In terms of public health, the report finds that “public health and safety appeared in 15 percent of mayoral speeches and was selected as a high priority by 14 percent of respondents in the mayoral survey. Public health and public safety are deeply interconnected. Just as health is more than the absence of disease, public safety is more than the absence of crime.”
Cities continue to develop innovative solutions to address these challenges. In Columbus, Ohio, the City Council plans to invest $150 million to improve housing stability. The report states the funding “will build transitional and permanent supportive housing to help people leave shelters and move into a safe, stable home.”
But in the face of limited federal investment and workforce shortages, experts underscore the importance of revitalizing downtowns, attracting businesses and “strengthening workforce pipelines.”
The press release highlights several key findings from the report.
Among them, the report states, “Infrastructure and housing are the most urgent structural challenges facing communities nationwide.”
Furthermore, “Housing affordability has become a widespread structural issue, with 75% of mayors citing high housing costs and 71% reporting insufficient housing supply.”
In addition, “Public safety strategies continue to evolve, with cities increasingly linking public safety, mental health and housing through more comprehensive approaches to community wellbeing.”
“The State of the Cities report underscores the resilience of local governments and the need for strong federal-local partnerships,” said Clarence E. Anthony, CEO and executive director of the National League of Cities. “Cities are confronting long-term challenges of housing affordability, aging infrastructure, workforce shortages and public safety with determination and innovation.”
The report also underscores the importance of effectively managing city budgets. “Fifty-eight percent of respondents use a strategic plan to primarily prioritize spending, and 54 percent allocate spending according to a breakdown of priority programs and services with performance measures.”
As federal funding continues to evolve, local leaders and mayors must ensure sustained investments and partnerships. The release states these efforts are critical to building thriving communities.
According to the release, “the State of the Cities report provides valuable insight into the issues local leaders are prioritizing today and underscores why strong federal-local partnerships remain essential to helping communities thrive.”
“Cities are engines of economic opportunity, innovation and community,” said Kevin Kramer, president of the National League of Cities and a Louisville, Kentucky, council member. “[…] Communities face challenges, and local governments are leading with practical, collaborative and innovative solutions that strengthen neighborhoods and improve quality of life.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
”cities continue to face overlapping, long-term challenges related to housing affordability, infrastructure investment, workforce development and community well-being”
Davis is a match to all four of those conditions.
Thank you Kavita for sharing this article with Vanguard readers.
We are a match by choice.
Ron, we are in agreement. On all four of those areas, Davis has chosen the path that has gotten us to where we are today.
Our housing affordability problem is largely, but not 100%, because the only houses that builders/developers have chosen to build have been large-footprint, high-amenities homes with unaffordable. They have avoided building small-footprint, modest-amenities homes with affordable prices. That has indeed been a choice.
Regarding capital infrastructure investment the choice of our local government has been to defer any such investments, thereby letting our streets crumble, and the trees in our parks shed limbs, and weeds grow unabated. The choice has been to kick the capital infrastructure can down the road.
Workforce development is a sad story, that is the product of the City and UCD choosing not to collaborate. 28 years ago when I moved here from Tennessee, Davis was a university town with a robust inventory of intellectual capital amassed inside the City Limits … an inventory that had been consistently growing over time. Fast forward to today and we have abdicated our status as a university town because our inventory of intellectual capital is a fraction of what it was and it is shrinking.
Regarding community wellbeing, in addition to a financial plan where the City pays its bills … all of its bills, City Council needs to lead the community in deciding what Davis’ Vision is for its future … what do we want to be in 10 years and 20 years. With no direction/leadership we have become a bedroom community with a substantial (and growing) retirement community component. Is that what we want to continue to be, or do we want something else? If it is the former, the completed financial plan will tell us how much it will cost to be that … and it won’t be inexpensive. If it is the latter, we need an economic development plan that leverages the core competencies of our community, which is the intellectual capital creation machine south of Russell Blvd.
When you moved here 28 years ago we didn’t have Measure J.
The choice of builders/developers to build only expensive houses for the economically elite has had nothing … absolutely nothing … to do with Measure J.
The choice of our local government to defer investment in and maintenance of our capital infrastructure has had nothing … absolutely nothing … to do with Measure J.
The choice of UCD and our local government to not collaborate on technology transfer and workforce development has had nothing … absolutely nothing … to do with Measure J.
The deterioration in our community wellbeing is the result of our piss poor performance in building housing for the economically elite, but not for our local workforce … of financial management that has amassed $264 million of unfunded capital infrastructure maintenance plus $167 million of unfunded pension liability plus $38 million of unfunded retiree healthcare liability … of economic depletion rather than development.
Measure J has occupied a similar timeline as those events, but there is a huge difference between coincidence and causation.
“The choice of builders/developers to build only expensive houses for the economically elite has had nothing … absolutely nothing … to do with Measure J.”
Not sure that’s actually correct. Risk and ROI are clearly impacted by Measure J. One way to mitigate those is by increasing the expected return for the investment.
Matt Williams is in denial about that elephant in the room.
“Risk and ROI are clearly impacted by Measure J. One way to mitigate those is by increasing the expected return for the investment.”
I dunno – the spanking machine works reasonably well, but it was uncomfortably close last time. (So they were willing to roll the dice – twice, and came up with snake eyes both times). Maybe they should have spent $900K instead of $800K (or whatever it cost them this time).
Or maybe they should have listened to the density monkeys (who advocate for a non-existent, low-paid “local workforce” who are supposedly seeking to buy a cheap house in Davis that some developer will supposedly provide), and also not extend beyond the channel.
Of course, they got a bargain price on the property in the first place.
Good thing that DISC has the same “0-2” record, since that would have INCREASED the local demand for housing.
So far, no one is stepping up regarding Willowgrove, despite its much worse location (too far from downtown, UCD, etc.). A commuter site to Sacramento.
The title of the article above is not well-aligned with the content of the article. It is not strictly a “housing shortage” article. (My guess is that David came up with that title; not the author of the article.)
In any case, I’ve found another article which notes that there is no housing shortage.
“There Is No Housing Shortage: What Legendary Investor Michael Burry Really Thinks Is Wrong with the U.S. Housing Market”
“Michael Burry, the investor renowned for his prescient bet against the U.S. housing market before the 2008 financial crisis, has publicly challenged the conventional narrative that America faces a housing shortage.”
“In his recent social media post, Burry argued the United States already leads the world in residential square footage per capita — a metric he believes fundamentally undercuts the shortage framing that dominates policy discussions.”
“Wealth, Not Credit, Now Drives Housing – Disputing Supply-Side Fixes”
https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/no-housing-shortage-legendary-investor-133712457.html
Yep. The “we’re out of housing” framing serves land speculators (we must have more land for housing, even if it’s 20′ underwater floodplain!) who profit mightily purchasing outlying ag land for thousands an acre, then selling it for tens or hundreds of thousands once they have the entitlements to develop it. That profit is also tax-deferred, indefinitely, if they exchange for income-producing real estate like malls and apartments.
Meanwhile, despite the “must have more homes” narrative, there are more vacant homes than the homeless population in the US…five times as many in San Francisco!
The problem is **NOT** lack of housing. Heck, it’s not even lack of infill. The Sacramento region has 20 years worth of unbuilt infill, but the land speculators continue to prevail. Incidentally, outlying “greenfield” development is roughly twice as costly to maintain as infill since the roads, pipes, and emergency trips are longer.
I’m going to move this discussion into a thread of its own.
In response to Matt Williams’ comment “The choice of builders/developers to build only expensive houses for the economically elite has had nothing … absolutely nothing … to do with Measure J” David Greenwald responded “Not sure that’s actually correct. Risk and ROI are clearly impacted by Measure J. One way to mitigate those is by increasing the expected return for the investment.”
David’s point is correct about the cohort of houses built on parcels that were subject to the provisions of Measure J. How big/meaningful is that cohort?
In the 28 years I have lived here, the City has reported to HCD that 2,250 Single Family Detached hoes have been built. Of those 2,250 exactly 81 of them have been built on parcels that were subject to the provisions of Measure J. That means a whopping 3.6% of the total 2,250 had their Risk and ROI impacted by Measure J. The remaining 2,169 did not. None of the houses in The Cannery did. None of the houses in Grande did. None of the houses in Chiles Ranch did. None of the houses in Paso Fino did. None of the houses in Willowbank Park did. None of the houses in Willowbank 10 did.
All of those developments were targeted at the economically elite, and by choice (with absolutely nothing to do with Risk and ROI) consciously excluded the Davis workforce and DJUSD teachers from the opportunity to purchase one of those 2,169 homes.
Playing the “devil’s advocate” here:
David is referring to the housing on farmland that WASN’T built as a result of Measure J.
However, he is also ignoring the increase in demand for housing, that would have resulted in a proposal that would have INCREASED demand for housing – DISC.
So, maybe Measure J is a “wash” in regard to addressing demand in general. (Also, demand itself is not a fixed number – and depends upon price, alternatives, etc.)
Those “two million” commuters who pass around Davis every day to reach UCD, and the 1.5 million Davis residents who commute to places like Sacramento already know this. (I took some liberties with the numbers.)
Ron, you missed one small aspect of David’s response to me … he was changing the subject.